Telangana High Court
Telangana United Teachers Federation, vs The State Of Telangana, on 21 December, 2023
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO
WRIT PETITION No.33001 of 2016
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed seeking following relief:
" to issue an appropriate order or direction more particularly a writ
of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent no 2 in not passing
any orders on the revision filed by the petitioner against the orders
passed by the 3rd respondent in proceedings No.E1/1694/2014, dated
02.12.2015, by upholding the orders passed by the 4th respondent with
regard to handing over the possession of the union building located in the
land to an extent of Ac.0.05gts. in Sy.No.348, situated at Adilabad Town,
Adilabad District as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law and is a
clear case of violation of principles of natural justice and consequently
direct the 2nd respondent to pass appropriate orders on the revision
petition filed by the petitioner in the interest of justice".
2. Heard Sri S.Satyam Reddy, learned counsel
representing Sri S. Surender Reddy, learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for
Revenue for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and
Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Smt.
K.Udayasri, for respondent No.6.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that,
earlier nomenclature of the petitioner's Federation was
Andhra Pradesh United Teachers' Federation (APUTF). On
23.09.2011, a general body meeting of the Adilabad District
of APUTF was conducted and was resolved to change the
name of the APUTF as Telangana United Teacher's
Federation (TUTF). Accordingly, the body was registered
vide registration No.501/2011, dated 25.10.2011.
Similarly, in all the Districts of Telangana, the name of
APUTF was changed into TUTF, and accordingly, Adilabad
unit's name was changed as TUTF of Adilabad unit. He
further submits that the petitioner's Federation submitted
a representation before respondent No.2 seeking to
handover the building to their representatives, even though
it is nothing to do with the assets of Adilabad District Unit.
He further submits that Sri A. Venkati, who is claiming to
be the General Secretary of APUTF, Adilabad, has filed an
application before respondent No.4. Basing on the said
application, respondent No.4 passed order vide Proceedings
No.C/1730/2011, dated 26.11.2011, directing the
Tahsildar, Adilabad, to take possession of TUTF building.
3.1. Questioning the said order, respondent No.6 filed
W.P.No.31993 of 2011 before this Court and the same was
withdrawn on 11.12.2012. Thereafter, respondent No.4
without giving any notice and opportunity to the
petitioner's Federation passed order vide Proceedings
No.1730/2011, dated 20.05.2013, directing respondent
No.5 to handover the union building to respondent No.6.
Questioning the said order, the petitioner filed
W.P.No.15727 of 2013 and the same was allowed on
06.06.2013, directing respondent No.4 to consider the
matter afresh and pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law, after giving notice and opportunity of personal
hearing to both sides and further, directed the Government
to remain in possession till the orders are passed afresh by
respondent No.4.
3.2. He further contended that respondent No.4 without
properly considering the contentions raised by the
petitioner passed the order on 21.05.2014, directing
Tahsildar/respondent No.5 to handover the possession of
the building to respondent No.6. Questioning the said
order, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.3 on
24.05.2014. Respondent No.3 without considering the
grounds of the appeal and without giving any reasons
dismissed the appeal on 02.12.2015 and the order of
respondent No.4, dated 20.05.2013, confirmed. Admittedly,
the said order was not in existence, as the said order was
already set aside by this Court in W.P.No.15727 of 2013 on
06.06.2013. Aggrieved by the same, petitioner filed revision
before respondent No.2 and when the said revision is
pending, respondent No.5 is trying to handover the
possession in favour of respondent No.6. At that stage, the
petitioner had approached this Court and filed the present
writ petition.
4. Per contra, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent No.6 vehemently
contended that, the revision petition filed by the petitioner
before respondent No.2 is not maintainable under law, and
the petitioner has not mentioned any provisions of law how
the said revision is maintainable before respondent No.2.
He further contended that subsequent to the order dated
02.12.2015 passed by respondent No.3, respondent No.5
handed over the subject property to respondent No.6 on
07.09.2016. Petitioner suppressed the said facts and filed
the present writ petition on 26.09.2016. By virtue of the
interim suspension granted by this Court, respondent No.4
has taken possession from respondent No.6 on 05.10.2016
and the petitioner is not having any right over the subject
property and they have to approach the competent Civil
Court to establish their claim. Hence the writ petition filed
by the petitioner's Federation is liable to be dismissed.
5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that
respondent No.3 after considering the contentions of the
respective parties and after due verification of the records
rightly dismissed the appeal confirming the order of
respondent No.4, and there is no illegality and irregularity
in the said order.
6. Having considered the rival submissions made by
respective parties and after perusal of the material available
on record it reveals that, the petitioner as well as
respondent No.6 are claiming the rights over the subject
property i.e., building located in the land to an extent of
Acs.0.05 guntas in Survey No.348 situated at Adilabad
Town. It is also reveals from the record that, on
20.05.2013, respondent No.4 passed the order vide
Procs.No.C/1730/2011, dated 20.05.2013, directing
respondent No.5 to handover the possession of the subject
property to UTF branch, Adilabad. Questioning the said
order, the petitioner's Federation filed W.P.No.15727 of
2013 and this Court after hearing the parties, disposed the
said writ petition on 06.06.2013, by setting aside the order
passed by respondent No.4 dated 20.05.2013 and directed
respondent No.4 herein to pass orders afresh, in
accordance with law, after giving opportunity of being heard
and till such orders are passed afresh by respondent No.1
therein, the subject building shall remain in possession of
the Government and the said order has become final.
7. Thereafter, respondent No.4 passed the order vide
Procs.No.C/1730/2011 dated 21.05.2014, holding that
respondent No.6/Federation is entitled for the possession of
the APUTF building and further directed respondent No.5
to handover the possession of the said building to
respondent No.6. Questioning the said order, petitioner
filed appeal before respondent No.3 and the same was
dismissed by its order dated 02.12.2015, and the operative
portion of it reads as follows:
To this effect, the Joint Collector, Adilabad has issued
notices to both the parties i.e., APUTF and TUTF and fixed
hearing in the first instance on 28.06.2014 and also issue
final notice to both the parties and concerned officer on
13.07.2015.
Thereafter after having gone through the orders of RDO,
Adilabad issued in C/1730/2013, Dt:20.05.2013 I don't find
any reasons to interfere with the orders issued by RDO,
Adilabad.
The RDO, Adilabad is requested to take necessary
action accordingly.
8. The above said order clearly reveals that, respondent
No.3 without giving any reasons simply dismissed, the
appeal confirming the non existing order dated 20.05.2016
of respondent No.4, as the said order was already set aside
by this Court in W.P.No.15727 of 2013 dated 06.06.2013.
Admittedly, the Petitioner filed appeal before respondent
no.2 questioning the subsequent order dated 21.05.2014
passed by respondent No.4. The main grievance of the
petitioner is that questioning the impugned order dated
02.12.2015 petitioner filed revision petition before
respondent No.2 on 14.12.2015 and the same is pending.
However, the petitioner has not stated how the said revision
petition is maintainable before respondent No.2 and the
same is not brought to the notice of this court that under
particular provision of law revision is lies before respondent
No.2.
9. Even assuming that the revision petition filed by the
petitioner before respondent No.1 is not maintainable; this
Court is of the view that respondent No.3 had passed cryptic
order without assigning any reasons and confirmed the non
existing order passed by respondent No.4. If this Court is going
to dismiss the writ petition it amounts to upholding of irregular
order passed by respondent No.3. Hence, this Court is invoking
the extraordinary powers conferred under Article 226 and
Article 227 of Constitution of India, molding the relief to render
substantial justice to the parties.
10. It is very much relevant to place on record that in
M. Sudakar vs. V. Manoharan and Others 1, the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that the power to mould relief is always available to
the Court possessed with the power to issue high prerogative
writs. In order to do complete justice it can mould the relief
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case. In the
facts of a given case, a Writ Petitioner may not be entitled to the
specific relief claimed by him, but this itself will not preclude
the Writ Court from granting such other relief to which he is
otherwise entitled. Hence, although there may be no specific
prayer the Court thinks that to meet the requirements and to do
1 2011 (1)SCC 484
complete justice in the matter, the relief can be moulded by the
Court.
11. In M/s Kranti Associates Pvt.Ltd and Another Vs. Masood
Ahmed 2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon several judgments
held at para 47 that the administrative authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions. Hence, the impugned order
passed by the appellate authority is violative of principles of natural
justice and contrary to law.
12. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota vs Shukla
and Brothers 3 relying upon the judgment in State of Rajasthan
vs. Rajendra Prasad Jain ((2008) 15 SCC 711) Hon'ble Apex
Court stated that 'reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion, and without the same it becomes lifeless.'
13. It is already stated supra that, respondent No.3
passed cryptic order on 02.12.2015, without considering
the contentions of the petitioner and without giving any
2 2010(9) SCC 496
3 2010(4) SCC 785
reasons, though, the petitioner has not directly questioned
the above said order in this writ petition. However, the
petitioner raised ground that, respondent No.3 has
mechanically passed non-speaking orders without giving
any reasons. This Court while exercising the powers
conferred under Article 226 and Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, to render substantial justice to the
parties, is of the view that respondent No.3 passed order
dated 02.12.2015 without giving any reasons and
confirmed the non existing order passed by respondent
No.4 dated 20.05.2013 and required reconsideration.
14. In view of the foregoing reasons as well as the
principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court the
impugned order dated 02.12.2015 passed by respondent
No.3 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, set aside and
respondent No.3 is directed to pass appropriate orders in
accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the
petitioner as well as respondent No.6 including personal
hearing within a period of one (1) month from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. Till such time, the official
respondents are directed to maintain status quo in respect
of the subject property.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No
costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous applications, if
any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
_____________________________
JUSTICE J SREENIVAS RAO
Dated: 21st December, 2023
L.R. Copy to be marked - Yes
PSW
